Jurisprudence & Litigation

NAACP v. Alabama: When “Transparency” Becomes Censorship

PDF available here “It is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association as [other] forms of governmental action.” – NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958) The freedom to associate with others and speak as a group […]

Filed Under: Blog, Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Associational Privacy, Donor Privacy, Harassment, NAACP, NAACP v. Alabama, Supreme Court, Disclosure, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Alabama

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti: Protecting the Right to Hear Others

PDF available here “The inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual.” – First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 777 (1978) Can the government silence speech about an election simply […]

Filed Under: Blog, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, First Amendment, Issues, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, Ballot Issue Advocacy, corporate speech, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Supreme Court, First Amendment, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Massachusetts

SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission: Protecting the First Amendment Rights of Americans

PDF available here  “[T]he government can have no anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to independent expenditure-only organizations.” – SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission[1] If one person can speak about a candidate without limit, can Congress ban two, three, or hundreds of people from joining together to do the same? That was the simple question presented […]

Filed Under: Blog, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Issues, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Money in Politics, Research, Super PACs, Buckley v. Valeo, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation

Understanding the Differences Between Political and Issue Advocacy

PDF available here The First Amendment protects speech from burdensome government regulation. Until the 1970s, federal law largely did not regulate either campaign speech or issue speech by advocacy groups. That changed with the adoption of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The Act attempted to regulate any speech “relative to a clearly identified candidate.” […]

Filed Under: Blog, Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure Federal, Disclosure Handouts, Disclosure Press Release/In the News/Blog, Issue Advocacy, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Buckley v. Valeo, Electioneering Communications, Express Advocacy, Issue Advocacy, U.S. Supreme Court, Disclosure, Issue Advocacy, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Disclosure, Issue Advocacy, Jurisprudence & Litigation

Citizens United v. FEC: Facts and Falsehoods

“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” – Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310, 349 (2010) The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck down a provision of […]

Filed Under: Blog, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure Handouts, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Issues, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, Disclosure, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Disclosure, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation

Super PACs: Expanding Freedom of Speech

“[T]he government can have no anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to independent expenditure–only organizations.” – SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission[1] The product of a 2010 court ruling, “super PACs” have been a boon to citizens wishing to more effectively speak about elections. Legally, they have ensured that Americans do not lose their First Amendment rights […]

Filed Under: Blog, Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure Handouts, Independent Speech, Issues, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Super PACs, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, The Media, Disclosure, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Disclosure, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation

A World Without Buckley v. Valeo

“The concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.” – Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 48 (1976) Decided over forty years ago, the landmark 1976 Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Valeo, remains at […]

Filed Under: Blog, Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits, Contribution Limits Handouts, Contributions & Limits, Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure Handouts, Expenditure, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Issues, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Money in Politics, Research, buckley, Buckley v. Valeo, Contributions & Limits, Disclosure, Expenditure, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation

Free Speech Under Fire: The Future of the First Amendment

In a set of remarks preceded by Brooklyn Law School President and Joseph Crea Dean Nicholas W. Allard, famed First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams muses on the recent and founding history of First Amendment law. Abrams is a longtime partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel and was counsel on well-known First Amendment cases like the Pentagon […]

Filed Under: First Amendment, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, Antonin Scalia, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Bill of Rights, Brown v. EMA, corruption, Floyd Abrams, Founding Fathers, Hill v. Colorado, Nicholas W. Allard, Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, First Amendment, Jurisprudence & Litigation, First Amendment, Jurisprudence & Litigation

A Landmark Decision Turns Forty: A Conversation on Buckley v. Valeo

In this series of essays by Brooklyn Law School President and Joseph Crea Dean Nicholas W. Allard, U.S. Court of Appeals Senior Judge and former U.S. Senator James L. Buckley, and former ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser, the authors discuss the landmark Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court decision after its 40th anniversary. Written as part […]

Filed Under: Contributions & Limits, Disclosure, Expenditure, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, ACLU, Buckley v. Valeo, corporate speech, corruption, eugene mccarthy, FECA, Ira Glasser, James L. Buckley, Nicholas W. Allard, Contribution Limits, Disclosure, Expenditure, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Contributions & Limits, Disclosure, Expenditure, Independent Speech, Jurisprudence & Litigation

Free Speech Matters: The Roberts Court and the First Amendment

In this article, Brooklyn Law School Professor Joel M. Gora, a CCP Academic Advisor, examines the impact of the Roberts Court on First Amendment rights after ten years, particularly with regards to campaign finance law in cases like Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC. Written as part of a symposium on “Free Speech Under Fire” […]

Filed Under: Contributions & Limits, Expenditure, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Issue Advocacy, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Research, Taxpayer Financed Campaigns, Antonin Scalia, Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, Buckley v. Valeo, Chief Justice John Roberts, Citizens United v. FEC, Joel Gora, McCutcheon v FEC, The Roberts Court, Contribution Limits, Expenditure, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Issue Advocacy, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Taxpayer Financed Campaigns, Contributions & Limits, Expenditure, First Amendment, Independent Speech, Issue Advocacy, Jurisprudence & Litigation, Taxpayer Financed Campaigns

The Center for Competitive Politics is now the Institute for Free Speech.